Federal Courts – Outline I Index (Parmet, Spring 2000) viii
FEDERAL COURTS
JUSTICIABILITY 1
Ban on Advisory Opinions 2
Must be an actual case or controversy
· Letters to the Justices 2
USSC does not give advisory opinions
· Muskrat v. United States 2
No adverse parties or concrete claims, therefore no case or controversy
Ripeness 3
Review is not appropriate when the injury is speculative and premature
· Abbott Labs v. Gardner 3
Court allowed pre-enforcement review of labeling regulation because of the hardship in making them wait for review
Standing 3
The determination is whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court - Need to analyze with particularity to relief sought-likelihood of it happening again
Constitutional Standing Requirements 4
1. Injury – has suffered or will imminently suffer a personal injury
2. Traceability – the injury is traceable to the Defendant
3. Redressability – the remedy sought is likely to redress the injury
· Allen v. Wright 4
Parents of Black children did not have standing to bring suit against the IRS challenging an IRS policy
· Federal Election Commission v. Akins 5
A group of voters who challenged an FEC decision did have standing because the relevant statute stated that any aggrieved party could challenge the commission’s activity.
Prudential Standing Requirements 4
Is the plaintiff arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the statute? Congress may override, don’t worry about prudential requirements if Congress had created standing
· National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank &Trust Co. 5
Banks that brought suit against the Credit Union Administration claiming that they misinterpreted the Credit Union Act were arguably within the zone of interest
Mootness 5
If events subsequent to the filling of the lawsuit resolve the case, then it should be dismissed.
Exceptions:
1. Wrongs capable of repetitions yet evading review- injury is the type that is likely to happen again to the plaintiff and will always become moot before the litigation can be complete
2. Voluntary Cessation – A case is not to be dismissed if the defendant voluntarily ceases the allegedly improper behavior but is free to return to it at anytime
· Defunis v. Odegaard 6
Discrimination case was moot because the law school had subsequently admitted the plaintiff and agreed to allow him to finish his last semester of school
· City of Los Angles v. Lyons 6
Despite the fact that the city had a placed moratorium on the use of chokeholds, the case was not moot because the moratorium was not permanent and the city could start chock holds against, but Lyons did not have standing to seek injunctive relief.
FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION 7
Deals with congresses power to vest the federal courts with federal question jurisdiction and the interpretation of statutory grants of authority to the federal courts to hear federal questions
Constitutional Scope of Federal Question Jurisdiction 7
Federal courts have jurisdiction in any case in which a federal question is an ingredient of the original case, even if other questions become layers in the case (expansive view)
· Osborn v. Bank of America 7
Arising under federal law means that there is a federal question that becomes important in the case
· Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills 8
In passing a jurisdictional grant must have wanted the courts to create a federal common law, which would be the federal ingredient (protective jurisdiction)
· Verlinden v. Central Bank of Nigeria 9
Even though the cause of action was based in state law, the federal court did not violate Article III because issues of foreign commerce are a matter of federal concern.
U.S.C. §1331 Jurisdiction (if there is a statue creating jurisdiction, then skip § 1331) 9
A case arises under federal law if it is apparent from the face of the plaintiff’s complaint either that the plaintiff’s cause of action was created by federal law; or if the plaintiff’s cause of action is based on state law that the federal law that creates a cause of action is an essential component of the plaintiff’s claim
· Louisiana Railroad Company v. Motley 9
Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule. It must be clear from the face of the plaintiff’s complaint that there is a federal question. It cannot be based on a federal law defense or on the plaintiff’s anticipation of a federal defense.
· American Well Works Co. v. Layne Bowler Co. 10
Arises under federal law if federal law creates the cause of action. There is no jurisdiction because a federal question did not give birth to the plaintiff’s libel claim.
· Smith v. Kansas City Title and Trust Co. 11
If plaintiff presents a state law cause of action, the case may still arise under federal law a federal statue is an integral component of the complaint. A federal question was presented by the plaintiff shareholder’s suit because the challenge to the federal bonds statue was an integral component of the plaintiff’s complaint and the plaintiff’s relief depended on a construction of the federal statue.
· Merrell Dow v. Thompson 12
The federal statue must itself create a cause of action for a state law claim to use a federal statute. Absence of federal cause of action in FDCA statute implies that congress intended to limit § 1331 jurisdiction. Makes stautory creation of a cause of action much more important.
When § 1331 is available for use in obtaining fed. question subject matter jurisdiction
1. explicitly created federal cause of action but no jurisdiction (but these statutes are usually created with jurisdiction) *
2. State cause of action and a “substantial” federal claim (but what does that mean?)
3. Implied federal cause of action and jurisdiction. (Congress meant for there to be a cause of action but didn’t say it) *
4. Explicit federal cause of action and jurisdiction but claim is not made because plaintiff forgot to put it in.
* Since Merrell Dow, the Court has been hesitant to find FQ jurisdiction except in 1 3
Declaratory Judgment and Federal Question Jurisdiction § 1331 13
Have to look at what the actual complaint for declaratory judgment and the underlying coercive action. The declaratory judgment can’t be the sole reason that the plaintiff is in federal court
· Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum 13
No federal question jurisdiction when the federal issue arose solely in anticipation of a federal defense in the underlying action.
· Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers 14
Because state claim based on state law, ERISA claim could only be raised as defense so no federal question jurisdiction.
FEDERAL COMMON LAW 15
Development of legally binding federal law by the federal courts in the absence of directly controlling constitutional or statutory provisions to protect the federal government’s interest.
Hierarchy of Law / Constitutional IssueFederal Statue
Federal Regulation
Federal Common Law
State Law
· Erie Railroad v. Thompkins 16
Federal courts must apply the law of the forum state in diversity cases, there is no general federal common law but there are circumstances in which federal common law can be created
· Clearfield Trust v. United States 17
Federal courts may develop federal common law to protect the proprietary interest of the U.S.
· Bank of America v. Parnel 18
Federal common law will be developed in suits between private parties only if applying state law will frustrate the federal interest.
· Athereton v. Federal Deposit Insurance Co. 18
State standard of fiduciary duty can apply if the state standard is higher than the federal
· Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino 18
Foreign policy interests justify common law
· Boyle v. United Technologies 18
Combining the 2 questions, the court found that federal common law determines liability for contractors making military equipment for the federal government
· Textile Union of America v. Lincoln Mills 19
Congress intended that the federal court create a federal common law for labor-management disputes
Two part inquiry to determine whether to create federal law to safeguard federal interest
1. Is this an area of federal concern such that federal common law should apply?
2. If it is, then what should the rule be (copy state law principles or formulate a new rule)?
* Anytime the government is implicated, skip question #1
IMPLIED CAUSES OF ACTION 19
Is the plaintiff part of the class of people who can invoke the power of the court? Situation arises when federal law does not talk about who can bring a claim. Much more important after Merrell Dow.
Statutory Creations of Federal Common Law 19
The court will create a cause of action because it is necessary to fulfill congress’ intent even though they were silent as to who can bring a claim under the statue.
· J.I. Case Company v. Borak 19
Private party had a cause of action for violations of § 14(a) of the 34 act, because the cause of action advances the legislative purpose of the act
· Cort v. Ash 20
Court shifted from Borak and created a four prong test:
1. Is the plaintiff one of the class for whose special benefit the statue was created;
2. is there any indication of legislative intent, to imply a cause of action;
3. Is it constant with the underlying purpose of the legislative scheme; and
4. Is the cause of action traditionally the domain of the states?
· Cannon v. University of Chicago 20
The Court implied a cause of action for a woman who brought a suit claiming sex discrimination in her denial of admission, based on the legislative intent of title IX.
· California v. Sierra Club 21
Based on only the first two Cort factors, the court concluded that the environmental organization did not have a cause of action under the Harbors Appropriation Act.
Constitutional Creations of Common Law Causes of Action 21
Congress has not created an enforcement mechanism to protect certain constitutional rights or the given remedy is grossly inadequate, the court will imply a constitutional cause of action in the absence of any statue.
· Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of The Federal Bureau of Narcotics 21
Individuals whose rights have been violated should not be relegated to state law remedies, which might not be adequate to address the constitutional issues.
· Schweiker v. Chilicky 22
Because congress created a remedy around the termination of benefits, the court found that there was no Bivens cause of action.
USSC REVIEW OF STATE COURT DECISIONS (The Back Door) 23
Ability to review comes from a combination of Article III and the supremacy clause and is codified in 28 U.S.C. 1257, but authority to review is limited to questions of federal law. USSC will not hear a case if the decision if the state’s highest court is supported by state law rational that is independent of federal law and adequate to sustain the result or if the reversal of the state court’s federal law ruling will not the change the outcome of the case because the result is independently supported by state court’s decision on state law grounds. If there is a presumption that the state court relied on federal grounds.
· Murdock v. City of Memphis 24
USSC does not decide issues of state law. It only reviews questions of federal law and decisions of the state’s highest court are final and unreviewable on issues of state law.
· Fox Film Corp. v. Muller 25
If state judgment rests on federal and state grounds, the USSC cannot review if the state grounds are adequate to support the judgment
· Michigan v. Long 25
USSC rejected view that determination of the legality of the search was decided based on the MI Constitution, and found that it was unclear if the MI Supreme Court relied on the state or federal constitution. Creates presumption that it was decided on federal law grounds.
Supreme Court Review of Incorporated Law 26
Where a state law issue is integrally tied to a federal question, the USSC may review as to ensure the federal rights. The state rules can be adopted as federal common law as long as the state rules do not 1) discriminate against the federal law or 2) run counter to federal law.
· Standard Oil v. Johnson 26
In order to determine whether the post fits the exemption, the court would have to determine whether the post is a department of the U.S., a federal law question so there is jurisdiction to review.
· Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Beaver County 27
USSC will not overrule the state court decision so long as the states do not discriminate against federal interest
Procedural Barriers to Supreme Court Review 27
When a petitioner fails to meet a state procedural requirement in raising a federal issue and raises the federal issue latter the supreme court will defer to the state and find that their procedural bar is independent and adequate so long as it was not theoretically impossible to anticipate what the state court would do.
· Herndon v. Georgia 27
Herndon should have anticipated that that the statute would have been reinterpret so it was not theoretically impossible to anticipate what the state court would do and the state ruling will serve as a bar to USSC review
· Ford v. Georgia 28
The Georgia rule was not a bar to USSC review because the rule did not exist prior to the case so there was no way for the defendant/petitioner to have followed the rule.
Rules on Supreme Court Review of State Court Decisions
1. Is there a federal question?
2. Was it correctly raised in the state court (procedural bars)
3. If yes, was the federal question correctly decided?
4. If the state court got the federal question right, it is affirmed get out. But if the state court got the federal question wrong, then the USSC will address the federal question
5. Independent and Adequate Question – If the decision would hold up the same way without the federal question, then affirm the state court. But if the decision does not hold up without the federal question, then reverse/full scale analysis.